Actually, no, fuck it I hate people who let their dogs intimidate and attack people. I think pepper spray is a good idea in such conditions. I know we're supposed to side with the guy with the wuzzy pets, as opposed to the guy who though he was going to be bitten for no reason by an animal he has no fucking reason to trust, but I can't, sorry.
I see a dog running at me, I start planning how to incapacitate or kill it before it injures me, and frankly, once you have defended yourself from a dog, you just know that if the owner is running at you then he has something on his mind other than apologising for letting his pet have a go.
I think this is one of those things that I really really can't judge too readily without, well, having seen it or having a good description from non-biased people as to what happened. Because it really could be anything from dogs lolloping up, obviously non-aggressively met by unreasonable force, to dogs ready to attack and being fended off successfully.
I'll admit though I'm leaning more toward the former, just from the fact that as soon as the other guy gets close, he gets pepper sprayed as well.
I loathe and detest extendable leashes when they're used by people who can't control their dogs. Or rather, I loathe the people who can't control their dogs, and use the extendable leashes as their excuse to never learn to get that control.
Our building has signs posted at every exit reminding residents that it's against Ottawa bylaws to have your dog out unleashed anywhere except designated unleashed parks.
This makes me automatically very nervous when one of my neighbours is wandering around with his unleashed dog (and a lot of them still do); if you're entirely unwilling to follow the rules even after they've been pointed out to you, then how can I possibly expect that you've trained your pet to do any better?
At least it was just a dachshund. It barely broke the skin 'cause it couldn't get its mouth all the way around my ankle. But if an animate sausage can break the leash, a larger dog would also be able to, and that's scarier. A 100-pound boxer like the one in the story is 80% of my body weight. I don't care how non-aggressive it is; even if the thing is jumping on me for kisses, I'm still likely to get hurt. Train your fucking dogs!
As far as the cyclist is concerned, he's just defended himself from a 98lb boxer, so his adrenaline is up, and the story says the owner ran towards him. Now at this stage, my thinking is that this fuckwit is now running towards me to punish me for hurting his precious deathmaw, I've avoided getting bitten, I'm absolutely fucked if i'm going to allow myself to get punched for it!
What is your definition of "charging"? If you're going past or through an off-leash dog park and a dog comes running up to you, what are your criteria for judging whether or not you will hurt this dog for approaching you?
But there's the bias trouble again. Likewise, in a hypothetical scenario, if some fuckwit with a fear of dogs pepper sprayed my dogs just for running up to him (assuming they were not, in fact, attacking) on his way through an off-leash dog park (which is the only reasonable scenario I can put this in), I'd go running towards the mess too. But I wouldn't be running to punch the fuckwit, I'd be running to my dogs. Because a) pepper spray fucks you up, so I'm worried about my pets, and b) it's unreasonable to expect the dogs to listen now that they've been pepper sprayed, so they might well attack him now when they wouldn't have ever done so before and would be justified in doing so if they chose to. (You think it's reasonable to defend yourself? So do they! And they're animals with brains, just like you or me, not robots, so while you can train them to really impressive standards, you cannot completely control them, and they will make their own decisions based on instinct when pressed. Like you do.)
So again, it could go either way, and it's hard to say which it was in this case from the details as presented in that article.
Seriously. Animals, not robots. You work with their doggie brains, show them you're in charge, make your expectations consistent and clear, make sure they know those expectations inside and out, be responsible, keep a mindful eye on them at all times, give them room for fun, accept that they make mistakes and have personalities and won't listen absolutely 100% of the time, correct them firmly but reasonably anyway to reinforce the majority of the time where they do listen, give them lots of affection as often as possible when they're not misbehaving, and make sure they have plenty of opportunities to earn more rewards for good behaviour. You will have good, well-trained dogs. But you still will not have robots, and expecting them to be robots will bring nothing but disappointment for everyone involved, including the dogs.
If I currently owned a dog, it would be trained to a standard where I could walk it off-leash. That would, in fact, be a goal. I still wouldn't do it except under very specific circumstances, though. And I might do it around the building and nearby environs, but only at night when the place is emptier and calmer and less full of distractions.
I'd never go to a dog park. It holds no interest for me.
That said, I can judge very friendly dog body language, and very hostile, but I'm not clear on the intermediate levels, so I'd err on the side of defending myself if I wasn't sure.
By which you mean "the owner didn't grab the (non-cord) leash".
Breaking the catch should still have been impossible, but describing the leash as "cord" inherently means it was a bad leash.
And, still, if you pepper spray dogs who come running up to you, while you're passing through an off-leash dog park, before they display hostile intent, because "there was a lot of fear happening"? That's a problem.
You'll notice that the article is very biased against the cyclist, the main article is somewhat more balanced. We're now calling being scared of dogs fuckwittery?
Ah, here we go. I did wonder if someone was going to pop up saying, "You just called a person with a fear of dogs a fuckwit!" I considered editing the comment to leave absolutely no room for ambiguity on it, but didn't think anyone here would do that much reading what they want to read into a sentence. Alas.
Having a phobia does not make you a fuckwit. I have my own phobias, plural, and simply having them does not make me a fuckwit. The fuckwittery in the scenario I described is about poor judgment and overreaction. It's what the hypothetical person with the fear of dogs does with their fear, where reacting in an extreme way to a situation they have misperceived (which is really common with fear responses) could very well bring about exactly what they're afraid of and make everything that much worse. It's not their phobia, it's them. It's how they deal with it.
This is relevant because even in the Daily Camera article, it's entirely a he-said she-said thing. There were apparently no bystanders to confirm or deny either side's account, and no additional information. Did the dogs actually jump up on the cyclist? Did they bite at him, or bite into his clothing? (Even biting and then pulling on clothing can be playful instead of an attack. Definitely ill-trained, though, and in need of having that behaviour addressed.) Does the cyclist actually know how to interpret canine body language enough to know the difference between a happy dog who just wants to play and an angry dog attempting to deal with a perceived threat? Have the dogs been trained by the owner to run alongside the owner's own bicycle, making it an act the dog is familiar with and thinks is fine? Have the dogs' level of training by the owner been assessed at other times, since having them misbehave while off-leash is clearly something he has been ticketed for before? Did anyone talk to the owner's neighbours about behaviour problems that could indicate poor training, such as constant barking at passers-by or other, more aggressive behaviour?
I mean, sure, maybe the Camera staff writer didn't want to report on it in-depth or didn't think it was relevant, but still. One can easily create versions of the story where either party is in the wrong. Or, more likely, where both are.
See, that's the kind of thing that pisses me off. Because if you're saying that, it means you don't actually know dogs. The default state for a dog who's having fun in a park is to be running. And if you know dogs, you know what body language means hostility and what just means playfulness, so the clear evidence you say you want will be there. It will be there EVERY TIME. But you don't know the difference, so every dog will look like it's attacking, to you, and if you respond along that vein, you will be attacking a dog that was not actually hostile, at which point it has every right to become hostile. And then everybody's fucked, and it's absolutely on you.
You may have a wonderful connection with your pet, but there comes a point in the scale of dogs (and I'd say a 98lb boxeris well up on that scale) where the facts that (a) 'it can do me serious damage', (b) 'it can run much faster than me' and (c) 'it is moving very quickly towards me' will come into the human mind long before 'is that a look of playful fun or murderous intent in its eye?'
Please to be keeping your selectively-bred hunting/fighting animal the fuck away from my legs.
All dog owners say their little froo froo is harmeless, they are generally quoted as saying so in the newspaper articles about the babies they eat.
Still, you'd think the default for "semi-elderly dude" isn't going to be "spritz down with pepper spray."
Like I said though, I can't really judge for sure. I'm just leaning toward that direction, because there seems to be an awful lot of pepper spray flying around.
Yeah, really I'm leaning toward the "both need a smack upside the head" theory, as much as I can as an armchair theorist without, y'know, having seen all the details. But the guy on the bike seems from what limited info we have to be overreacting, and the other guy had already been cited for off-leash problems, so you'd think that he'd a) make sure his pets will respond to him, and b) do his best to keep them away from the guy who already has shown he has a problem with them.
West acknowledged having been previously ticketed by the city of Lafayette for having his dogs off leash. Toll said he was responsible for calling authorities about that incident, too, and that the men have had an ongoing dispute over the dogs for years.
Sounds like neither is a reliable narrator about this incident.
Getting your retaliation in first still doesn't seem acceptable to me, though. Although there appears to be a certain amount of past history between these two, I still count battery by pepper spray: 2, battery by dogs or dog-owner: 0.
Pepper spray isn't for retaliation, it's for prevention.
It's fairly clear that rightly or wrongly the guy thought he was about to be attacked, first by the dogs, and then by the owner, and took steps to prevent it.
If he had at any point moved towards either dogs or owner the situation would be different, buut even the massively slanted version of the story in the law blog makes it clear that they all ran at him.
Is it the (by the sounds of it, phobic) non dog owner's responsibility to know that much about dogs? And if biting is something that can happen in 'playful' moods then does it really make a difference?
It seems pretty plain that as far as you're concerned, it's the responsibility of people who don't own or like dogs to allow dogs to do anything they want to them, as long as the dog has not shown in special dog code that it actually intends serious harm. This seems somewhat absurd to me, but you're not going to accept a different outlook so I guess this discussion is pretty pointless.
No, the difference here is that I'm coming at it from the perspective of logic and respect, not coddling fear-based ignorance.
I think that anyone with a phobia should deal with it, but especially if it affects others, and that if someone has a fear of dogs and doesn't know anything about their body language, in order to not actively harm an innocent animal out of sheer ignorance, they should either a) learn something, or b) avoid off-leash dog parks where this will be a problem. This isn't at all the same thing as "you should just let fuddy duddy cuddly big wuvable animals with teeth that can harm you do whatever they want because they are so fuddy duddy cuddly, oh yes!". If a dog is actually attacking you, I want you to do whatever the hell you have to do to come out okay. Kill the dog if you have to. (A dog that attacks a human will, as far as I know, be euthanized upon capture anyway in most places.) If you're not sure what's going on, get off your bike and keep it between you and the dog. I have done this in the past, and it works really well. But my point is that if you have actively put yourself into a situation where you are in dog territory (dog park), and normal dog behaviour for that territory will read as aggressive to you regardless of whether it really is or not, meaning you might do something extreme and harmful (not just to the dog, but also to you if your aggressive opening convinces the dog it needs to defend itself now) for reasons that are based on stuff happening in your head rather than in reality, yeah, obviously that's on you.
And yes, of course, your phobia is also your responsibility, regardless of whether that you is personal or universal. Why the hell should it be anybody else's? I don't care if it's spiders, dogs, heights, water, germs, crowds, small spaces, or anything else. Your mental health is your own responsibility. I have tons of sympathy for it, and good friends can and should go out of their way to be respectful of it and not deliberately put you in situations that are hard for you. But it's still your responsibility to deal with it; again, doubly so if it can effect others.
So no, you are not allowed to harm animals you're afraid of because you don't know how they function, and in cases where running into that animal is really common, why would it not be in everyone's best interest to learn a thing or two?
I don't understand how "learn about the world you live in and stuff you might encounter there, especially if it's a problem for you" and "avoid dogs if you have a problem with them" and "think before you act" and "phobias are by their very nature not based in reality, maybe you shouldn't let them dictate whether or not you harm someone or something" is me being unreasonable, here. These things seem like pretty basic rules for being a sane, sensible human being. So yeah, you're right, I'm not willing to accept a different viewpoint on this.
Toll didn't actually put himself in dog territory, though. This incident didn't happen in a dog park. It happened on a mixed-use trail (hiking and cycling) on public lands. Dogs on public lands around Boulder are required to either be on a leash, or have a Voice and Sight dog control tag (http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5624&Itemid=411).
Also, as Toll was clipped into the pedals, he couldn't quickly get off the bike and use it as a shield. Actually, he failed to free himself from the clips at all, and fell over during the incident; by the time West was coming at him, he was effectively pinned. I like to imagine him flailing about under his bike, bleating in terror and wildly spraying everything in range, but that's just me.
None of that means Toll isn't a dick, of course. He could have just pedaled his ass out of there. For added lulz, check out the page Toll made to complain about his treatment in the Daily Camera's story: http://remingtonwestboulderpeterdogs.wordpress.com/ (and keep in mind he made it sometime after excitedly tweeting "Daily Camera readers: I'm quoted 2x in the cover story of today's Friday section ...").
Where would a person go to learn about said animals, if we don't have them ourselves?
I'm afraid of dogs unless I know them. Dogs I've been introduced to by friends and have gotten to know are fine. Now this is my issue and I own it, and I want to learn how to deal with dogs so that I'm not automatically afraid of them and can interpret their body language.
In the meantime...it's illegal in Seattle to have a dog off leash, except in your own yard or in a designated dog park, but during my run last night on a public street I encountered three dogs running around loose outside their houses. This is not a rare occurrence. I'd like to have a response other than freaking out and reaching for the bear spray, so...how does one go about doing that?
The article you linked seems to be saying it was public park area, not a specific dog park. I think that makes a difference. If it's specifically a dog park, that's one thing (don't go there if dogs freak you out and don't freak out on the dogs if you are there), but if it's public park area that allows off leash dogs, as the article seems to say, that's another, IMO.
From the sounds of things, you have friends with dogs and are comfortable with those dogs, so I'd spend some time with your friends while their dogs are around. Observe the dogs. Watch how their body language changes from when they're happy and eager to when they're alert -- maybe listening to a noise outside -- to when they're being quiet an obedient. Maybe ask if you can all go to a dog park, and have one friend stay with you (whose job is to intervene if any strange dogs approach, whether friendly or otherwise) while another takes the dog into the park. This can give you a chance to observe the dogs as they play with each other. You'll see barking and growling both in play and for real between the dogs as they interact and sort out their status. After watching for awhile, you should start to see (and hear) the difference.
For something even better, though, I'd recommend volunteering at an animal shelter near you. Not only will it get you solid exposure in a very controlled environment, but those people see a LOT of dogs, and part of what they do is test for temperament. If you can observe them doing that and ask whoever's doing it to narrate as they go, you'll learn a lot.
And without looking it up, I am positive that there are DVDs out there of dog trainers breaking down canine body language. Dozens of them. If you don't want to pay for them, you could very likely request particular titles through your local library once you'd looked them up.
If you were local, I would happily take you down to my sister's and have us take her dog for a walk some quiet evening when we'd be the only folks out, so that I could explain all the changes in her dog's body language as we went around the neighbourhood and what they tell me about what she's thinking and feeling. I hope you can snag a friend who's willing to do the same.
I was making tea and thinking about this some more, and I thought, "I could write a better primer than that." Though the visuals do totally help, and I haven't got any. But still. Here's mine:
If ears are back, and:
...tail is down, that's submissive. Look to see if the dog is kind of hunching a bit with his stance -- maybe even his head down into his shoulders, or lowered with muzzle pointing down to the ground, just like with people. That dog thinks you're in charge. They may approach and attempt to get affection, but they're seeking approval, so usually not unless they already know you or you call them over. The exception to this one is if the dog starts barking at you or growling, in which case that dog is fucking terrified of you and feels extremely threatened, and he is trying to let you know with the tail position and the vocal warnings, but for whatever reason he feels like you're not listening. This might be a dog with socialization issues. I would very obviously look away to one side and then move off in the direction I faced, to let the dog know I very obviously don't care what they're up to and have no interest in them. (Backing up while maintaining eye contact could read as saying now we're both scared of each other, and one or the other of us has to take charge, which could go places you don't want.)
...tail is horizontal, that reads to me as a wary dog. I'd be concerned and assume the dog felt the same way about me. I sincerely doubt this dog would be approaching me. Not without a change in body language as he makes his intentions towards me clear.
...tail is up and rigid, that's aggression. It probably comes with sharp, powerful, angry barks, or growling. If this happens while you're on a run past somebody's yard, veer away immediately without otherwise acknowledging the dog by making eye contact or facing them.
If ears are up and:
...tail is up, then it's most likely comfortable and happy and confident, especially if he was running around a second ago. Look for an open mouth with tongue lolling either inside or outside the mouth, and some panting. He may very well approach you to check you out, still looking like this, in which case just let him sniff at you. For dogs, mutual sniffing is the default greeting, and very quickly jerking away or backing away can mean things you don't want to mean, here. So just let the happy dog sniff you and act like you're basically otherwise ignoring him. He will almost certainly get distracted in a few seconds and move off.
Alert pose: Ears will be up, stance will be like a doggie superhero, with chest out and legs firm. (If he's lying down, obviously it'll look a little different, but he'll go a bit tense all the same. You can tell if you're watching when it changes, or if you've got a hand on him at the time.) His mouth will close. He'll go totally quiet. His ears might swivel as he attempts to get a good auditory read in things. He'll look right at whatever just got his attention. The tail matters less, because it can be down (if he's next to someone dominant to him), or horizontal (could go either way), or up (if he's about to approach). From there, the responses will either be to relax again and not give a shit, or to approach in Happy mode because it's someone he likes and recognizes, or to approach in the same Alert stance. There will almost certainly be a warning bark if it's someone unknown approaching His Damn Yard, and then whether it continues as Alert or goes into aggression or leaves off will depend on the response.
Playing: If you see a Happy Dog with growling or a few barks, it will almost certainly come with what's called a "play bow", which is where the dog's butt is up but his front is crouched. This explains the discrepancy: If you see a Happy Dog doing a play bow, just about everything he does is all meant in fun, including if he nips at you or bites your sleeve or pant leg. This is normal for dogs to do with each other, so it's not that he's being a jerk. It's that his owner has not taught him that this is inappropriate to do with people. (Which is totally a distinction they can and will make if taught to do so, but otherwise is not something they have any reason to learn.) I am really reluctant to tell you what to do here, because trying to assert dominance on a strange dog is super tricky and probably not to be attempted by someone who is likely scared and maybe panicky about what's going on. I would seriously straight-up talk to a trainer about it.
But basically, unless the dog is actively approaching you, if you just stick to the other side of the street and ignore it, it will not bother you.
Thanks for all of this, it does help. I think perhaps I do "read" some of this on some level, because I can usually tell (or think I can) what my friends' dogs are doing and a bit about how they're feeling.
I have thought about volunteering at the Seattle Animal Shelter which has an extensive socialization program for dogs and teaches its volunteers how to work with them. (Time's an issue there, but...maybe someday.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 11:27 am (UTC)I hate people who let their dogs intimidate and attack people. I think pepper spray is a good idea in such conditions. I know we're supposed to side with the guy with the wuzzy pets, as opposed to the guy who though he was going to be bitten for no reason by an animal he has no fucking reason to trust, but I can't, sorry.
I see a dog running at me, I start planning how to incapacitate or kill it before it injures me, and frankly, once you have defended yourself from a dog, you just know that if the owner is running at you then he has something on his mind other than apologising for letting his pet have a go.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 03:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 03:20 pm (UTC)Unless a) there's a badly trained unneutered male dog on a leash or b) there's a cyclist being a prat.
He hates bikes, across the board, seems to think they're a rival or a threat.
But if sprayed by pepper spray? I'd be amased if I could calm him down for hours afterwards, and I'd be fuming at the idiot that did it.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 04:32 pm (UTC)Or your leashed dog. I once got bitten by a dachshund that broke the stop on one of those stupid extendable leashes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 05:05 pm (UTC)I'll admit though I'm leaning more toward the former, just from the fact that as soon as the other guy gets close, he gets pepper sprayed as well.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 05:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 05:44 pm (UTC)This makes me automatically very nervous when one of my neighbours is wandering around with his unleashed dog (and a lot of them still do); if you're entirely unwilling to follow the rules even after they've been pointed out to you, then how can I possibly expect that you've trained your pet to do any better?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 06:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 07:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 09:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 09:53 pm (UTC)So again, it could go either way, and it's hard to say which it was in this case from the details as presented in that article.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 09:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 10:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 10:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 10:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-18 10:52 pm (UTC)Also, there's a link in the law-humor article that links to a beefier article of the incident. It's still a he-said/he-said thing, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 04:11 am (UTC)That said, I can judge very friendly dog body language, and very hostile, but I'm not clear on the intermediate levels, so I'd err on the side of defending myself if I wasn't sure.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 04:12 am (UTC)Breaking the catch should still have been impossible, but describing the leash as "cord" inherently means it was a bad leash.
And, still, if you pepper spray dogs who come running up to you, while you're passing through an off-leash dog park, before they display hostile intent, because "there was a lot of fear happening"? That's a problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 04:13 am (UTC)But that doesn't change that "the white one wants my flesh" dude was passing through an off-leash dog park.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 04:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 08:42 am (UTC)Cool :S
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 08:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 08:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 10:31 am (UTC)Having a phobia does not make you a fuckwit. I have my own phobias, plural, and simply having them does not make me a fuckwit. The fuckwittery in the scenario I described is about poor judgment and overreaction. It's what the hypothetical person with the fear of dogs does with their fear, where reacting in an extreme way to a situation they have misperceived (which is really common with fear responses) could very well bring about exactly what they're afraid of and make everything that much worse. It's not their phobia, it's them. It's how they deal with it.
This is relevant because even in the Daily Camera article, it's entirely a he-said she-said thing. There were apparently no bystanders to confirm or deny either side's account, and no additional information. Did the dogs actually jump up on the cyclist? Did they bite at him, or bite into his clothing? (Even biting and then pulling on clothing can be playful instead of an attack. Definitely ill-trained, though, and in need of having that behaviour addressed.) Does the cyclist actually know how to interpret canine body language enough to know the difference between a happy dog who just wants to play and an angry dog attempting to deal with a perceived threat? Have the dogs been trained by the owner to run alongside the owner's own bicycle, making it an act the dog is familiar with and thinks is fine? Have the dogs' level of training by the owner been assessed at other times, since having them misbehave while off-leash is clearly something he has been ticketed for before? Did anyone talk to the owner's neighbours about behaviour problems that could indicate poor training, such as constant barking at passers-by or other, more aggressive behaviour?
I mean, sure, maybe the Camera staff writer didn't want to report on it in-depth or didn't think it was relevant, but still. One can easily create versions of the story where either party is in the wrong. Or, more likely, where both are.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 10:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 11:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 02:11 pm (UTC)Please to be keeping your selectively-bred hunting/fighting animal the fuck away from my legs.
All dog owners say their little froo froo is harmeless, they are generally quoted as saying so in the newspaper articles about the babies they eat.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 05:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 06:58 pm (UTC)Like I said though, I can't really judge for sure. I'm just leaning toward that direction, because there seems to be an awful lot of pepper spray flying around.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-19 07:02 pm (UTC)Rashodog.
Date: 2010-09-19 08:14 pm (UTC)Sounds like neither is a reliable narrator about this incident.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-20 10:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-20 10:11 am (UTC)It's fairly clear that rightly or wrongly the guy thought he was about to be attacked, first by the dogs, and then by the owner, and took steps to prevent it.
If he had at any point moved towards either dogs or owner the situation would be different, buut even the massively slanted version of the story in the law blog makes it clear that they all ran at him.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-20 10:16 am (UTC)It seems pretty plain that as far as you're concerned, it's the responsibility of people who don't own or like dogs to allow dogs to do anything they want to them, as long as the dog has not shown in special dog code that it actually intends serious harm. This seems somewhat absurd to me, but you're not going to accept a different outlook so I guess this discussion is pretty pointless.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-20 10:49 am (UTC)I think that anyone with a phobia should deal with it, but especially if it affects others, and that if someone has a fear of dogs and doesn't know anything about their body language, in order to not actively harm an innocent animal out of sheer ignorance, they should either a) learn something, or b) avoid off-leash dog parks where this will be a problem. This isn't at all the same thing as "you should just let fuddy duddy cuddly big wuvable animals with teeth that can harm you do whatever they want because they are so fuddy duddy cuddly, oh yes!". If a dog is actually attacking you, I want you to do whatever the hell you have to do to come out okay. Kill the dog if you have to. (A dog that attacks a human will, as far as I know, be euthanized upon capture anyway in most places.) If you're not sure what's going on, get off your bike and keep it between you and the dog. I have done this in the past, and it works really well. But my point is that if you have actively put yourself into a situation where you are in dog territory (dog park), and normal dog behaviour for that territory will read as aggressive to you regardless of whether it really is or not, meaning you might do something extreme and harmful (not just to the dog, but also to you if your aggressive opening convinces the dog it needs to defend itself now) for reasons that are based on stuff happening in your head rather than in reality, yeah, obviously that's on you.
And yes, of course, your phobia is also your responsibility, regardless of whether that you is personal or universal. Why the hell should it be anybody else's? I don't care if it's spiders, dogs, heights, water, germs, crowds, small spaces, or anything else. Your mental health is your own responsibility. I have tons of sympathy for it, and good friends can and should go out of their way to be respectful of it and not deliberately put you in situations that are hard for you. But it's still your responsibility to deal with it; again, doubly so if it can effect others.
So no, you are not allowed to harm animals you're afraid of because you don't know how they function, and in cases where running into that animal is really common, why would it not be in everyone's best interest to learn a thing or two?
I don't understand how "learn about the world you live in and stuff you might encounter there, especially if it's a problem for you" and "avoid dogs if you have a problem with them" and "think before you act" and "phobias are by their very nature not based in reality, maybe you shouldn't let them dictate whether or not you harm someone or something" is me being unreasonable, here. These things seem like pretty basic rules for being a sane, sensible human being. So yeah, you're right, I'm not willing to accept a different viewpoint on this.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-20 11:25 pm (UTC)Also, as Toll was clipped into the pedals, he couldn't quickly get off the bike and use it as a shield. Actually, he failed to free himself from the clips at all, and fell over during the incident; by the time West was coming at him, he was effectively pinned. I like to imagine him flailing about under his bike, bleating in terror and wildly spraying everything in range, but that's just me.
None of that means Toll isn't a dick, of course. He could have just pedaled his ass out of there. For added lulz, check out the page Toll made to complain about his treatment in the Daily Camera's story: http://remingtonwestboulderpeterdogs.wordpress.com/ (and keep in mind he made it sometime after excitedly tweeting "Daily Camera readers: I'm quoted 2x in the cover story of today's Friday section ...").
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-23 06:25 pm (UTC)I'm afraid of dogs unless I know them. Dogs I've been introduced to by friends and have gotten to know are fine. Now this is my issue and I own it, and I want to learn how to deal with dogs so that I'm not automatically afraid of them and can interpret their body language.
In the meantime...it's illegal in Seattle to have a dog off leash, except in your own yard or in a designated dog park, but during my run last night on a public street I encountered three dogs running around loose outside their houses. This is not a rare occurrence. I'd like to have a response other than freaking out and reaching for the bear spray, so...how does one go about doing that?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-24 07:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-26 08:35 pm (UTC)For a beginning primer, this is pretty good.
From the sounds of things, you have friends with dogs and are comfortable with those dogs, so I'd spend some time with your friends while their dogs are around. Observe the dogs. Watch how their body language changes from when they're happy and eager to when they're alert -- maybe listening to a noise outside -- to when they're being quiet an obedient. Maybe ask if you can all go to a dog park, and have one friend stay with you (whose job is to intervene if any strange dogs approach, whether friendly or otherwise) while another takes the dog into the park. This can give you a chance to observe the dogs as they play with each other. You'll see barking and growling both in play and for real between the dogs as they interact and sort out their status. After watching for awhile, you should start to see (and hear) the difference.
For something even better, though, I'd recommend volunteering at an animal shelter near you. Not only will it get you solid exposure in a very controlled environment, but those people see a LOT of dogs, and part of what they do is test for temperament. If you can observe them doing that and ask whoever's doing it to narrate as they go, you'll learn a lot.
And without looking it up, I am positive that there are DVDs out there of dog trainers breaking down canine body language. Dozens of them. If you don't want to pay for them, you could very likely request particular titles through your local library once you'd looked them up.
If you were local, I would happily take you down to my sister's and have us take her dog for a walk some quiet evening when we'd be the only folks out, so that I could explain all the changes in her dog's body language as we went around the neighbourhood and what they tell me about what she's thinking and feeling. I hope you can snag a friend who's willing to do the same.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-26 09:33 pm (UTC)If ears are back, and:
...tail is down, that's submissive. Look to see if the dog is kind of hunching a bit with his stance -- maybe even his head down into his shoulders, or lowered with muzzle pointing down to the ground, just like with people. That dog thinks you're in charge. They may approach and attempt to get affection, but they're seeking approval, so usually not unless they already know you or you call them over. The exception to this one is if the dog starts barking at you or growling, in which case that dog is fucking terrified of you and feels extremely threatened, and he is trying to let you know with the tail position and the vocal warnings, but for whatever reason he feels like you're not listening. This might be a dog with socialization issues. I would very obviously look away to one side and then move off in the direction I faced, to let the dog know I very obviously don't care what they're up to and have no interest in them. (Backing up while maintaining eye contact could read as saying now we're both scared of each other, and one or the other of us has to take charge, which could go places you don't want.)
...tail is horizontal, that reads to me as a wary dog. I'd be concerned and assume the dog felt the same way about me. I sincerely doubt this dog would be approaching me. Not without a change in body language as he makes his intentions towards me clear.
...tail is up and rigid, that's aggression. It probably comes with sharp, powerful, angry barks, or growling. If this happens while you're on a run past somebody's yard, veer away immediately without otherwise acknowledging the dog by making eye contact or facing them.
If ears are up and:
...tail is up, then it's most likely comfortable and happy and confident, especially if he was running around a second ago. Look for an open mouth with tongue lolling either inside or outside the mouth, and some panting. He may very well approach you to check you out, still looking like this, in which case just let him sniff at you. For dogs, mutual sniffing is the default greeting, and very quickly jerking away or backing away can mean things you don't want to mean, here. So just let the happy dog sniff you and act like you're basically otherwise ignoring him. He will almost certainly get distracted in a few seconds and move off.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-26 09:36 pm (UTC)Playing: If you see a Happy Dog with growling or a few barks, it will almost certainly come with what's called a "play bow", which is where the dog's butt is up but his front is crouched. This explains the discrepancy: If you see a Happy Dog doing a play bow, just about everything he does is all meant in fun, including if he nips at you or bites your sleeve or pant leg. This is normal for dogs to do with each other, so it's not that he's being a jerk. It's that his owner has not taught him that this is inappropriate to do with people. (Which is totally a distinction they can and will make if taught to do so, but otherwise is not something they have any reason to learn.) I am really reluctant to tell you what to do here, because trying to assert dominance on a strange dog is super tricky and probably not to be attempted by someone who is likely scared and maybe panicky about what's going on. I would seriously straight-up talk to a trainer about it.
But basically, unless the dog is actively approaching you, if you just stick to the other side of the street and ignore it, it will not bother you.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-28 04:47 am (UTC)I have thought about volunteering at the Seattle Animal Shelter which has an extensive socialization program for dogs and teaches its volunteers how to work with them. (Time's an issue there, but...maybe someday.)